Income inequality has been spreading in a lot of countries, where a small elite group makes an enormous percentage of the nations income.
Unless you think it is coincidence that nations with a relatively equitable distribution of wealth — the Nordic countries, Denmark, Poland, France — fared better in the 2008-09 recession than those with largest disparities — the United States, Britain, Ireland, Spain, Russia — you have a reason to worry about an unbridgeable gap between the executive class and everyone else.
Every society in which a tiny elite has amassed a vastly disproportionate share of the wealth — from 16-century Spain to America in the 1920s — has lost its footing, leading to a either traumatic collapse or an attenuated decline.
Economists make arguments about the damage large income inequality causes.
From A Speech by the IMF's "Strauss Kahn"
Like the Great Depression before it, the Great Recession was preceded by an increase in the income share of the rich, a growing financial sector, and a major rise in debt. Inequality could also be behind the Chinese export-oriented model, since solid domestic demand needs a healthy middle class, while a low exchange rate goes hand-in-hand with a low real wage. Of course, the unbalanced pattern of growth had a variety of causes, but we would be foolish to ignore the distribution of wealth.Inequality goes against notions of fairness and solidarity, but it also threatens economic and social stability. This is especially true in poorer countries. Inequality can dampen economic opportunity, by preventing the poor from accessing the financing needed to pursue profitable investments. It can divert people toward unproductive activities. It can make countries more prone to adverse shocks—with fewer people able to dip into savings during bad times, the decline in growth is larger.
source: http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2010/110110.htm
So based upon this...what arguments can be made about current republican policies like the Bush tax cuts, or repealing Obama care? Aren't they counter intuitive and simply exacerbating a problem that has proven to be catastrophic in the past?
Or what kind of rationale is there at this time for policies that will exacerbate income inequality?
Unless you think it is coincidence that nations with a relatively equitable distribution of wealth — the Nordic countries, Denmark, Poland, France — fared better in the 2008-09 recession than those with largest disparities — the United States, Britain, Ireland, Spain, Russia — you have a reason to worry about an unbridgeable gap between the executive class and everyone else.
Every society in which a tiny elite has amassed a vastly disproportionate share of the wealth — from 16-century Spain to America in the 1920s — has lost its footing, leading to a either traumatic collapse or an attenuated decline.
Economists make arguments about the damage large income inequality causes.
From A Speech by the IMF's "Strauss Kahn"
Like the Great Depression before it, the Great Recession was preceded by an increase in the income share of the rich, a growing financial sector, and a major rise in debt. Inequality could also be behind the Chinese export-oriented model, since solid domestic demand needs a healthy middle class, while a low exchange rate goes hand-in-hand with a low real wage. Of course, the unbalanced pattern of growth had a variety of causes, but we would be foolish to ignore the distribution of wealth.Inequality goes against notions of fairness and solidarity, but it also threatens economic and social stability. This is especially true in poorer countries. Inequality can dampen economic opportunity, by preventing the poor from accessing the financing needed to pursue profitable investments. It can divert people toward unproductive activities. It can make countries more prone to adverse shocks—with fewer people able to dip into savings during bad times, the decline in growth is larger.
source: http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2010/110110.htm
So based upon this...what arguments can be made about current republican policies like the Bush tax cuts, or repealing Obama care? Aren't they counter intuitive and simply exacerbating a problem that has proven to be catastrophic in the past?
Or what kind of rationale is there at this time for policies that will exacerbate income inequality?